>
> I have a squeezebox1 with slimserver running on XP.
>
> Is there an easy way to re-run the network setup?

press-and-hold power.

-kdf

Mister-E

2005-11-16, 18:30

I have a problem with your response, kdf, in that I am using a really cool universal remote (Logitech Harmony 676) which I will give up when they pry it from my cold dead hands. However, it does have one shortcoming in that the "power" toggle for the SB1, which does in fact turn power on and off, does not respond to the "press-and-hold" thing -- it does all commands briefly, no matter if you keep pressing down the power. So, your suggestion is a non-starter for me.

I haven't tried to have the Harmony "learn" the SB1's power button (it was already programmed in), but I have a strong suspicion that it still wouldn't do the "press-and-hold" thing.

And no, I'm not going to keep two remotes around just for this.

What is the problem with putting a "Re-Run Network Setup" under "Settings"? Doesn't that make sense? It's a setting, right? Like, the most fundamental one? In fact, it would be way better to be able to respecify the slimserver, WITHOUT having to re-run the network setup (WEP keys, etc -- what a pain) or at least respecifying the slimserver should be a separate choice, with Wireless/Ethernet setup as another option...

Can you help me out by letting me know why Network Setup should NOT appear under the Setting menu? What was Slim Devices' thought process there? People too stupid or something, they might accidentally re-set-up the network every five minutes?

Cheers,

kdf

2005-11-16, 18:59

My apologies. I thought you were asking how it could be done, so I was
trying to be helpful and provide that detail.
I'm surprised that the Harmony remote doesn't resend repeat signals for
power (which is what triggers the reset if you hold for long enough)

i believe the rational behind requiring the remote is one of security.
Access to network settings is something that not all users want to be
available to anyone with web access. Squeezebox 2 has made this a
little easier by allowing you to press and hold left to go into setup
without a reset, but this is still a hardware feature. None of the
players seem to have any hooks for allowing the software to trigger the
menu. Since the entire player settings menu is controlled by software
after the player connects, the software would have to trigger the
reset. I'm sorry this isn't the answer you want, but it is all that
answer that I'm able to provide.

cheers,
kdf

Mister-E

2005-11-16, 19:23

Total bummer.

It seems to me that if the players had the hook, then at least a plug-in could be written for those that wanted it, without it being the default behavior. But I guess that's not the case, with any of the players, from your description.

I know I should officially submit a feature request, but for now let's say that I suggest Slim rethinks their position on this issue.

Thanks kdf!

pfarrell

2005-11-16, 19:30

On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 18:23 -0800, Mister-E wrote:
> Total bummer.

Patches always welcome.

> I know I should officially submit a feature request, but for now let's
> say that I suggest Slim rethinks their position on this issue.

If your desktop is always running, why not just use it?
Once the scanning is done, a slimserver doesn't have
to be on a very fast computer. Memory helps, especially
with large libraries, but even transcoding doesn't take
that much CPU.

I never touch the computer than runs my slimserver.
It is down in the basement, and I rarely even see it.
I rip on an upstairs computer and just transfer the
files over the house network.

Isn't there an easier way to do what you want?

--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

kdf

2005-11-16, 19:41

>
I have a one-for-all remote that I've used to learn the power button
code. Holding that resets my players. (I just tested)
Take that for what it is (my experience), but it might be worth trying
a learned code instead of a pre-set one.
There are a lot of functions that you are barred from without the
button repeats. It seems very odd to me that a remote such as the
Harmony would not offer some setting to deal with this.

Maybe other users of the Harmony have found ways to accomplish this?
-k

radish

2005-11-16, 20:22

I use a Harmony remote. I have to say I haven't bothered trying this, but I would imagine you could learn a long repeat of power into a custom key, and stick that on a device menu. The actual power button won't do it, but you can have as many custom commands as you like.

I just keep the real remote in a handy drawer in case I need it. I've never found any universal remote that didn't need the original once in a while.

Mister-E

2005-11-16, 20:40

On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 18:23 -0800, Mister-E wrote:
> Total bummer.

Patches always welcome.

> I know I should officially submit a feature request, but for now let's
> say that I suggest Slim rethinks their position on this issue.

Well... Radical? I don't think so. Certainly 90% of the people don't want to switch Slimservers, but then Slim Devices has made a business out of doing what 90% of the people DON'T want to do, no?

Points:

-- My library is in constant flux. I'm adding new music all the time, or moving music to my "archives" folder (which Slim doesn't support -- how about a special music-folder browse (not cached) for seldom-used music, music that's not officially included under "All Artists", e.g.? Yet Another Wish List Item...

-- It IS a pain in the butt to keep the computers in sync. My laptop is the most likely target for acquiring new music (and let's just not say anything more about that, shall we?), and transferring new music to my stable, always-on desktop DOES take time, even over a decent wireless network (which would be a fast G network except for when my B-device SqueezeBox1 slows things down...)

-- Not to mention the fact that SlimServer is an utter, bloated, waddling pig when it comes to rescanning a large library, at least on my 2.4 GHz P4 with a 7200 RPM Ultra-ATA/133 hard drive/16 MB cache. Takes at least ten minutes to rescan my library (a mere 2861 track, not including my "Archives" folder), at full blazing CPU, which kills everything else, including playing music. (Compare that to, say, my favorite music manager, Muzicman, which is a REAL DATABASE for music, no foolin', and it takes about 15 *SECONDS* to scan the entire database and add new music. Take *that*, Slimserver.) So, long story short, slinging music around a network, at least when SlimServer is involved, is a pain in the ASS.

-- Firstly, though, let's point out that Slimserver on the laptop is an advantageous thing, so I can use it to listen to music on the road via Softsqueeze, not to mention Internet Radio, etc. Of course I could throw uniformity in the trash can, and use Winamp for Internet music, and Muzicman for MP3's, on my laptop, but we like uniformity, don't we?

So, long story short, when I come home with 10 new CD's on my laptop, if I want to listen to them, you're asking me to copy them all over the network, then initialize a (bloated, painfully-slow, time-consuming, everything-killing) SlimServer music scan on my desktop, THEN I can listen to them, as opposed to (a) switching my Squeezebox to a different, fully-synced, ready-to-go server, and just listening...

...Hmmmmm... doesn't really sound that radical to me. At all.

Also, allowing switching between multiple slimservers would make a nifty way to switch between husband's/wife's/children's music libraries. Of course, if Slim Devices had any clue that there are often multiple computers in a household, with multiple people wanting to listen to different libraries of music, then we might stand a chance. But maybe Squeezebox is the music streamer for single loners? Sitting home alone with your Linux box? How sad.

Mr E

JJZolx

2005-11-16, 21:21

One thing that's been talked about in the past has been to password protect the setup section of the Squeezebox to keep unwanted folks out. If that were done I'd see no reason that a server selection option couldn't then be placed there. I agree that ideally, you don't want to walk through the network setup all over again just to select a server. Ideally you'd be able just select from a list of servers that the Squeezebox sees on the network.

I wonder, though, since you have a SB1, if there will be any significant changes to the SB1 firmware in the future. From what I can tell, it seems that all development for the older devices has ceased.

kdf

2005-11-16, 21:28

>
Thank you for your feedback. All of the developers, debuggers and
other enthusiastic users (such as yourself) will continue to work hard
to meet your needs.
Please stop back again sometime and let us know how things improve, and
we'll let you know if we find any girlfriends.

cheers
-kdf

JJZolx

2005-11-16, 21:35

i believe the rational behind requiring the remote is one of security.
Access to network settings is something that not all users want to be
available to anyone with web access.
I don't quite follow this. I thought he was just asking why the network setup wasn't in the settings section of the remote interface, not for control from the web interface.

It seems to be a fairly common theme where folks are using a programmable remote that can't simulate the "press and hold" thing. I wonder if there isn't another way of accomplishing the same thing in the firmware - say by recognizing N presses in quick succession as equivalent, or maybe some odd button sequence.

kolepard

2005-11-16, 21:42

>we'll let you know if we find any girlfriends.

Gosh, for the sake of all Squeezebox lovers everywhere, we're better
off if you don't.

(Just kidding, just kidding!)

Seriously, I think most of us really appreciate the first rate job
that everyone at slim and you and the other open source contributors
do for the rest of us.

Kevin
--
Kevin O. Lepard
kolepard (AT) charter (DOT) net

Happiness is being 100% Microsoft free.

kdf

2005-11-16, 21:48

On 16-Nov-05, at 8:42 PM, Kevin O. Lepard wrote:

>> we'll let you know if we find any girlfriends.
>
> Gosh, for the sake of all Squeezebox lovers everywhere, we're better
> off if you don't.
>
> (Just kidding, just kidding!)
>
so was I. I'm recently married, actually :)

-k

pfarrell

2005-11-16, 21:49

On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 20:35 -0800, JJZolx wrote:
> kdf Wrote:
> > i believe the rational behind requiring the remote is one of security.
> > Access to network settings is something that not all users want to be
> > available to anyone with web access.
> I don't quite follow this. I thought he was just asking why the
> network setup wasn't in the settings section of the remote interface,
> not for control from the web interface.

Perhaps he has something of a real request, but with the attitude,
its is hard to see any developer bothering to read his trolls.

In general, it is bad security design to allow one computer (the server)
to change the network setup of another computer (the SqueezeBox) without
a positive action on the user of the second computer (the SqueezeBox) in
this case.

That some software vendors put in weak designs is not a good reason
for open source folks to do so. The source is there if someone
really needs it, but it is bad design.

Especially when it is just a question of supporting a guy's favorite
remote when he shows this much disdain for the development community.

> I wonder if there isn't another way of accomplishing the same thing in
> the firmware - say by recognizing N presses in quick succession as
> equivalent, or maybe some odd button sequence.

Could well be, but I'm sure not going to look for it to support
Mister Ego.

On to more pleasant topics.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com

kdf

2005-11-16, 22:01

On 16-Nov-05, at 8:49 PM, Pat Farrell wrote:

> On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 20:35 -0800, JJZolx wrote:
>> kdf Wrote:
>>> i believe the rational behind requiring the remote is one of
>>> security.
>>> Access to network settings is something that not all users want to be
>>> available to anyone with web access.
>> I don't quite follow this. I thought he was just asking why the
>> network setup wasn't in the settings section of the remote interface,
>> not for control from the web interface.
>
> Perhaps he has something of a real request, but with the attitude,
> its is hard to see any developer bothering to read his trolls.
>
well, there is that, but my answer was earlier in the thread. JJ is
probably quite capable of figuring it out for himself, but I'll indulge
the question anyway. Having the firmware respond means that the
hardware must be present, and being used at the time in the way it was
designed. Having a command embedded in the server, when the design
puts all commands into a common gateway means that this command is then
available via the web, CLI, RPC, etc. Any button or ir command can be
sent via the server. Add the fact that its open source, and anyone
could edit the server to trigger such functions at any time. It goes
beyond simply hiding passwords and wireless settings. Lets not forget,
we're now in a world where some places are actually trying to make it a
major crime to tap into nearby bandwidth. not funny then if your
squeezebox is arbitrarily set to link up with another network.

Hence, just as Pat has always pointed out, a security issue. My
apologies for not being thorough before, but I do tend to avoid giving
long drawn out histories as a first answer to a question when there are
much more efficient answers. In hindsight, I could have been even more
efficient.

>
>> I wonder if there isn't another way of accomplishing the same thing
>> in
>> the firmware - say by recognizing N presses in quick succession as
>> equivalent, or maybe some odd button sequence.
>>
intriguing idea. I'm sure it's possible, but you'd have to have fast
fingers and a fast mechanical response on the button pads.
as it has been suggested, there are probably other buttons that can
learn the repeated code.

-kdf

JJZolx

2005-11-16, 22:37

>> I don't quite follow this. I thought he was just asking why the
>> network setup wasn't in the settings section of the remote interface,
>> not for control from the web interface.

well, there is that, but my answer was earlier in the thread. JJ is
probably quite capable of figuring it out for himself, but I'll indulge
the question anyway. Having the firmware respond means that the
hardware must be present, and being used at the time in the way it was
designed. Having a command embedded in the server, when the design
puts all commands into a common gateway means that this command is then
available via the web, CLI, RPC, etc.

Any button or ir command can be sent via the server. Add the fact that its
open source, and anyone could edit the server to trigger such functions at
any time.
Ok, I see what you mean now. I wasn't at all aware that in order to implement a command in the remote interface means that it's accessible from the server.

How about this, then? Keep access to the network setup the same as it is now, but give the ability to define multiple servers, giving each a name. Then present those server connection options in the settings section. You'd be able to have the server control the Squeezebox connection, but only to the extent of being able to connect to these pre-defined servers.

dwc

2005-11-16, 22:48

So, long story short ...then initialize a (bloated, painfully-slow, time-consuming, everything-killing) SlimServer music scan on my desktop, THEN I can listen to them...
Mr E

Actually, as was mentioned on another thread or two in the last couple days, you don't need to kick off a db rescan of any sort to pick up the new files.

Just use your remote and navigate into the new directories using browse by folder, then scroll through each new song at least once. This means hit the down arrow until you've gone through all the songs in the new folder until you come back to the first song. Once you've done that the songs are in the db. No pesky downtime. :) Repeat for each new folder.

-Dan
(so much ill attitude recently)

Mister-E

2005-11-16, 23:34

Good posts here.

But I still think that having a single squeezebox that supports multiple slimservers/multiple libraries is a great idea, mainly for the separate husband/wife/child libraries (I don't want my kid messing with my playlists or any other settings! he should have his own slimserver running!) but also just for multiple computer/multiple library junkies like me.

It would also be a huge bonus for all those Beta testers out there! You could have a stable machine, then you could have your Beta machine, and toggle between them easily!

If it's simply a case where, hey, that's the firmware, and it's never going to change, then that's OK. But the argument from "security" still sounds awfully weak to me, even after reading all these posts.

And if it's true that a lot of universal remotes have trouble with held-button-presses, then that's something else for Slim Devices to consider, as I know they have always prided themselves on working with universal remotes.

Ciao

Mister-E

2005-11-16, 23:39

How about this, then? Keep access to the network setup the same as it is now, but give the ability to define multiple servers, giving each a name. Then present those server connection options in the settings section. You'd be able to have the server control the Squeezebox connection, but only to the extent of being able to connect to these pre-defined servers.

Yes Yes Yes!!!! Exactly what I was talking about. Multiple slimservers = multiple libraries, which is good for everyone! Beta testers, families, everybody! The network setup *must* be separated from the server choice(s).

For example, Softsqueeze has a simple dialog to point Softsqueeze to any host you want. Now, was that so hard? Didn't even have to hold down the power button...

mherger

2005-11-17, 00:59

> For example, Softsqueeze has a simple dialog to point Softsqueeze to
> any host you want. Now, was that so hard? Didn't even have to hold
> down the power button...

No, but try to open that configuration window on the squeezbox. Now, that
is hard! :-)

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------
Help translate SlimServer by using the
SlimString Translation Helper (http://www.herger.net/slim/)

Mister-E

2005-11-17, 01:00

On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 20:35 -0800, JJZolx wrote:[color=blue]

... but I'm sure not going to look for it to support Mister Ego.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com

Typical response from this community. Everybody's happy as long as we, the purchasers and users of the product, declaim that open source is the greatest, slim devices is the greatest, etc., but apparently "negative" comments, like saying that library rescans are molasses-slow resource hogs, or that Squeezebox should be able to select a host server as easily as SoftSqueeze, are not welcome.

Well, there's a reason I'm still using my Squeezebox1, and it's not lack of money. It's that I haven't seen any improvements that matter to ME since SB1 and slimserver 5.4. Visualizations? Neat-o. A cool new box that won't fit in my a/v rack? Neat-o. So? It's not making me want to upgrade. A lot of people's needs have obviously been addressed in SB2 and SB3. But not mine. Does that make me Mr Radical Ego? Whatever. I've been waiting two subsequent generations now for a product that's worth the upgrade. Still waiting.

This community has a bad habit of jumping on anyone who expresses displeasure with the product, unless it's accompanied by sufficient bowing and scraping. I hope that changes. "Complainers" should be listened to, whether you like what's said, whether you don't agree with how it's said. If Slim wants to break out of its niche-market status, and start selling some major product, they should listen.

mherger

2005-11-17, 01:26

> Typical response from this community.

I'm sorry, you're wrong. Please go through the forums and have a good
reading. You'll see that discussions generally are kind. There are some
discussions which get a little too noisy. But that's a minority.

> Everybody's happy as long as we,
> the purchasers and users of the product, declaim that open source is the
> greatest, slim devices is the greatest, etc., but apparently "negative"
> comments, like saying that library rescans are molasses-slow resource
> hogs, or that Squeezebox should be able to select a host server as
> easily as SoftSqueeze, are not welcome.

It's not about _what_ you say, but _how_ you say it. These are well known
issues which are partially already worked on.

> I've been waiting two subsequent generations now for a
> product that's worth the upgrade. Still waiting.

You should have joined these groups earlier and communicate what matters
to you.

> This community has a bad habit of jumping on anyone who expresses
> displeasure with the product, unless it's accompanied by sufficient

Please don't judge from one or those few threads which start with
"Slimserver is unusable". There have been threads which started with
similar complaints by users who wanted to return the device. But they
actually asked for help, didn't only complain. And they were helped.
Believe me, it's all a question of style, of how you talk to people.

Regards,

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------
Help translate SlimServer by using the
SlimString Translation Helper (http://www.herger.net/slim/)

bernt

2005-11-17, 02:06

Hey, mister-e! You don't have to do a rescan every time you add new music. Go to Browse Music folder and play the New Music and it's added to the database.

Mister-E wrote:
> Points:
> -- My library is in constant flux.
> -- It IS a pain in the butt to keep the computers in sync.
> -- Not to mention the fact that SlimServer is an utter, bloated,
> waddling pig

...I'd just like to add that I thought all the points in this
post were a good summary of my situation until the gratuitous
ad hominem at the end.

Let's not throw out the baby (the idea multiple networks -
some really cool, cool advantages) with the bathwater (the
conclusion).

press-and-hold power.
I should point out that I didn't think this was working on my vanilla system (using slim's remote), but it's really press-and-hold-for-more-than-10-seconds.

twylie

2006-08-02, 16:02

bringing this back up to see if a feature request exists for ability to select the server independant of re-running the network setup. I have one library on a RAID5 server in the basement, but multiple PC's running around the house. Different platforms, some SS playlists, some iTunes playlists, etc. iTunes is great for creating drag and drop playlists, but if done on a machine other than the XP box running slimserver, it gets tricky to feed these playlists to whole house audio or a specific room with a SB. The ability to dynamically change the server the SB is pointing to (without re-running setup) would be a great feature to me. The SoundBridge has been doing this since its inception as I used it to toggle between my slimserver instance and an iTunes library on a separate machien that popped on and off the network. The Soundbridges have now been (mostly) banished and i miss this feature.

Let me know if there is an item to vote for and I will.

thanks,

twylie

twylie

2006-08-02, 16:44

did a little more digging with different search terms in the bugs. area.

http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2607

short answer is won't be fixed as an on-the-fly selection, but we could possibly get acceptance of a "choice" of predefined network/server setups. For me, this would be perfectly acceptable and provide some improved harmony in the house. Even the "hold the left button" to reselect isn't a great option for me as my SB3 is in the basement feeding a distributed audio setup. Web interface changeability is what I'd need to make it super easy.

twylie

JJZolx

2006-08-02, 16:53

Even the "hold the left button" to reselect isn't a great option for me as my SB3 is in the basement feeding a distributed audio setup. Web interface changeability is what I'd need to make it super easy.
Maybe this can be looked at in conjunction with some of the future changes being made in support of SqueezeNetwork. I know there are plans to make the web interface work better with SqueezeNetwork, and I believe this includes the ability to get an SB2/3 to connect and disconnect from SquuezeNetwork through the web interface. Having the ability to connect or disconnect an SB from a local server would probably be very similar.

Mark Lanctot

2006-08-02, 17:08

I know there are plans to make the web interface work better with SqueezeNetwork, and I believe this includes the ability to get an SB2/3 to connect and disconnect from SquuezeNetwork through the web interface.